IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3488 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

SAVIBEN VALABHAI AHIR & ORS.

Versus HEIRS OF DECD. MAHADEVBHAI KHOABHAI AYAR & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 09/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 06.07.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.909 of 1996, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,81,500/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal is that on 27.07.1996, the deceased Valabhai Ahir was returning from Bharatpur to Kandla by driving the tanker bearing registration No.GJ-8-T-4307 and one Shri Hamir Jiva Ahir was engaged as cleaner on the said tanker. At the time of accident, the deceased was driving the said tanker at a very moderate speed on the correct side of the road on Ajmer-Beawar National Highway No.8 and when he reached one kilometer away from the sign board of Mangalia Vas towards Beawar, he tried to took the turn and the said tanker went off left side of the road and turned turtle. Resultantly, the driver of the tanker sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

3. It has been further averred that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a driver on the aforesaid tanker and he was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as a salary and a sum of Rs.50/- as a special diet allowance. Therefore, the claim petition came to be filed under Section 163-A of the M. V. Act.

4. Having been served with the notice of the claim petition, the Insurance Company had filed the written statement thereby denying averments made in the claim petition in toto and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,81,500/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimants have preferred the captioned appeal thereby challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.

7. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

8. Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the claim petition came to be filed under the provisions of Section 163-A of the M. V. Act. He further submitted that the M. V. Act came to be amended and new Section 164 has been inserted. He further submitted that as per Section 164, the original claimants/appellants are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in case of death and Rs.2,50,000/- is to be awarded in case of grievous hurt to the legal heir or victim as the case may be. He further submitted that the said amendment was implemented retrospectively. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Urmila Halder, reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL- SC 74844 Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgmen